Thanks so much for those kind words, @henryquach !
Just be sure to NEVER do as I say NOR as I do. Frankly, I’m slightly ashamed of how much I have to hack simulations working with startups. But I try to never let “perfect be the enemy of…” some sort of valuable feedback for a client.
One thing I glossed over (because I couldn’t read my own friggin slides) was that with modeling PC + Ti02, you can no longer use the Photoreal photorealistic rendering tool. If a model has volumetric scatter, Photoreal doesn’t work.
You can still get realistic images out of LightTools, but you have to create a backward spatial luminance mesh which is:
A.) a pain in the butt, and
B.) takes me a week or longer to trace 1 view!! (vs minutes w/ Photoreal)
I realized this the first time around after I’d already promised a client a Photoreal view in our contract. Then, with the SUPER SHORT timeframe I was given to provide feedback, I couldn’t do the sim multiple times to fine-tune the appearance. I ran it once, with a totally hacked material model, and then had to rely on other data to actually do the meat of the work.
As with Zemax, I wish the real-life appearance simulations were better/faster/more idiot-proof. They’re already pretty amazing! But as something to rely on as a way to communicate expectations to laymen clients – they suck.
One especially tricky thing to get a feel for with illumination simulations is what a lit appearance will be under different ambient lighting. And that’s one of THE MOST important things my clients want to be able to predict before molding a part.
- Will the dark parts light up like a glow worm in a dark room?
- Will I still be able to see the lit parts when outside in direct sunlight?
So if you’re looking for things to tool around with in your time left with free LT access, I’d advise becoming a pro at realistic renderings.
And then please teach me.